4.6 Article

Diversity of seed and seed oil physicochemical traits of Xanthoceras sorbifolium Bunge

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfca.2020.103705

关键词

Xanthoceras sorbifolium Bunge; Seed morphological traits; Seed oil; Crude fat; Soluble sugar; Mineral concentration; Fatty acid composition; Geographical-climatic factors

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2015ZCQ-LX-02]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31600241]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The physicochemical traits of Xanthoceras sorbifolium seeds from different areas were analyzed, showing that seeds from Mudanjiang, Fuxin, and Qingyang were suitable for various products, while seeds from Yonghe and Hunyuan were suitable for food production and nursery stock.
The seed and seed oil of Xanthoceras sorbifolium Bunge has high value in multiple applications, but varies considerably in different populations. To provide a basis for seed selection, physicochemical traits of the seeds from 13 areas were determined and analyzed in relation to geographical-climatic factors. Most mineral elements and fatty acids exhibited positive correlations with longitude. Seeds from Mudanjiang had the highest concentrations of crude fat, soluble sugar, N, Ca, Zn, Mn, and saturated and monounsaturated fatty acids. Concentrations of K, Mg, and Cu were highest in Fuxin, and P and Fe were highest in Qingyang. The concentrations of the investigated components indicated that the seeds from the three areas (Mudanjiang, Fuxin, and Qingyang) were suitable for the production of cooking oil, biological products, and health food products. Seeds from Yonghe and Hunyuan had large size and may be suitable for food production and nursery stock. Based on the physicochemical traits of the seeds from the 13 areas, they were evaluated for their future development and utilization. The results indicated the seeds of X. sorbifolium as a natural source of nutrients and minerals for the human.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据